He sounds so bitter. In between the whining, I heard: "My pay is shiat, my job sucks, no one else will hire me - and it's all because women are kicking my ass in the workforce rather than being kept in the house where they belong."

raygundan:This is a fiasco in both directions. I agree completely that nobody should be forced or feel compelled to stay home and raise their kids like that. But on the other hand, nobody should *ever* be stigmatized for choosing to do so. It's bad enough that some women look down on women who choose this as if they were betraying their sex somehow-- but men who make the same choice are stigmatized by nearly everyone.

That said, I'm not sure how either choice could make a person lose their sense of self. That seems like it's probably an unrelated issue. If who you are is so tied up in your job or your kids that a change in either destroys it, the issue is not your job or your kids

Oh, I agree. 100%, I agree and I'm not lauding one choice over the other, but the suggestion that "women would be happier staying at home." . However, there were other societal pressures for her at the time, equally misogynistic as 'staying at home with your kids' was the expectation that you were somehow not a complete woman unless you had children. Some women are better off not being mothers. And while my mother was fantastic, and held it together the best she could, she admitted as much later in life that it wasn't what she really wanted out of life. But, at the time there didn't seem to be any other choice for her.

He also thinks women should allow their fathers to arrange marriages for them, public schools should be abolished, the Federal Reserve destroyed, and the demons that control the Jewish people need to be slaughtered by unconditional love.

raygundan:hasty ambush: I know a guy who spent good money putting his daughter through school getting an engineering degree. She worked for one year after graduation/marriage before quitting to become a stay at home mom.

Wouldn't a year of an engineering salary generally pay for getting an engineering degree?

Sure, if you don't have to pay for rent, or food, or car payments or...

I never had any desire to marry someone who wasn't interested in living the same sort of life that I do. Mrs_Fab is a highly competent and well-paid professional... and between the two of us, we do pretty well.

I can't imagine making do with less than half of our current income, all so I can come home to a homemade dinner (that's not even as good as one I can make myself) and a houseful of screaming tots.

Then during the late 1960s, radical feminists encouraged young women to set aside their traditional family roles as homemakers, helpmates, child nurturers and husband civilizers for something trumpted as much more rewarding.

Have to be a radical feminist to suggest setting aside traditional roles which culture foists upon you for your own wants in this life? Strange. Plus, I do not know of people suggesting work is "much more rewarding" than parenthood, merely this should be as rewarding as when men pursue careers, and the whole independence of not being forced to rely on or otherwise stay with a male.

Women were told that being a stay-at-home mom was nothing more than enslavement perpetrated by their male chauvinist husbands.

No, see, women were told being required to be a stay-at-home mom as a result of having a vagina was. Being a stay-at-home mother is great. Being a stay-at-home father is great. Being a working parent is great. Being a working not parent is great. Whatever option should be available to you.

As a consequence, it now requires both partners to be employed in order to make ends meet. This dual working requirement is expensive for a family. Added costs including transportation, taxes, daycare and work apparel often erode a woman's paycheck almost to the point where it's not worth working.

Wait...both partners need employment to be financially stable, but costs associated with employment mean employment is financially neutral? Are you sure you know what words you wrote?

As it turns out, young married women often prove to be chronically absent and less productive workers compared to their male counterparts.

This suggests the problem lies with the woman rather than gender roles which assume the woman will remain home with the children. Further, I imagine "chronically absent" is the cause of "less productive", assuming any factual basis of the former claim, not both chronically absent and less productive when in work. Oh look, you say this:

Caring and loving mothers are compelled to stay home with their sick children resulting in excessive rates of absenteeism. Paid leaves of absence extended to pregnant employees cause more problems for employers.

Women by nature are not designed to be competitors in the workforce.

No, women by culture are not. Subverting the culture gives you women with aspirations, tenacity, acumen, etc.. I would say any nature of women which keeps them from being competitors in the workforce would be due to a masculine definition of workforce, though I think this claim is unsubstantiated. Also, competitors are not always beneficial. Progress does not come as a result of competition, only increases in mindless productivity. Basically, women by nature are designed to be innovators in the workforce. Wonderful argument.

Molavian:DeaH: sigdiamond2000: Then during the late 1960s, radical feminists encouraged young women to set aside their traditional family roles as homemakers, helpmates, child nurturers and husband civilizers for something trumpted as much more rewarding.

What the f*ck is a "helpmate?"

An unpaid assistant. Think: an intern, but you can sleep with her without getting into trouble. Also, she is allowed to run all your personal errands, do your cleaning, and make all your meals.

I suppose I'll need to get a helpmate for me and the wife. They're all women, you say?

The GOP stands firmly against same-sex helpmates. And, yes, a helpmate must always be female or it goes against God's® will. The best you can do for the wife is a servant, and you have to pay servants. Of course, the letter-writer could be a liberal, but, somehow, I don't think so.

Meh, my mother stayed at home mostly and it worked out fine. They were middle class middle class, though, literally third quintile smack in the middle of the income distribution, and we lived in a low cost of living area. Plus, once we (the kids) were all reasonably independent human beings with school and shiat, I think the poor woman was bored out of her mind, she ended up volunteering for essentially all the things, ever. And at one point she fired the contractor for the house and took over managing a construction project herself. Which, don't get me wrong, saved a huge quantity of money and got the job done faster, but c'mon, how itching for something to do do you have to be? Christ.

What I'm saying here is that, as someone who grew up in a family unit intentionally designed (my parents, they're planners) to be basically what the author of TFA was proposing, I still don't see how it's particularly any more practical or compelling than a two-income household. I honestly think my mother would have been happier taking a five-year break (at which point my youngest sibling entered pre-school and was gone seven hours a day) and then working part time. She actually maintained her nursing license and is still current on it "in case something happens to your father", so I think the same idea may have occurred to her at some point.

//Then, my parents are so traditionally American they shiat bald eagles and sweat apple pie, so the level of crazy they experience when they don't have something constructive to do may be abnormally high.//The "in case something happens to your father" line still cracks me up, as they're age- and finance-wise essentially retired and he's only still working at this point because of the whole bald-eagle thing to begin with.

kiwimoogle84:I was a widow by 23, and not a war widow. Luckily I didn't have any children, but if I did, sadly, I'd be lumped in with every other single mom on the planet. Either I was a slut who got knocked up on a one night stand, or a divorcee whose husband couldn't stand the crazy anymore. No one takes widowing into account.

/lucky I didn't have any kids

The tradition in India was that if a woman was above childbearing age and was widowed, she simply became male. "He" could therefore work with money, take jobs away from the home, etc.

As for women of your age, I hope you like his brother, and his brother's wife (if he has one). It's in the Bible, so it must be right!

mcwehrle:OgreMagi: Spaced Cowboy: Beware middle age women in middle management. You'll never find a less reasonable, less intelligent breed of human on the planet.

I've worked with some highly competent middle management women who were a joy to work for.

Then I've worked with the biatch shrews who think they have to prove something by berating all the men every chance they get.

For some reason, the hotter the woman manager, the bigger the biatch. I guess they are trying to prove they didn't get their job on their backs. Their actions suggest otherwise.

I despise working with mostly women. And here's why. The HR policies regarding them are so unequal. Young mothers need time off, sometimes extra, for sick kids, and yes, sometimes young mothers get sick and need time off too. What I have a problem with is as an older female who NEVER had kids, I *can* be required to bring in a physician's excuse if I miss over 3 consecutive days. A mother (or father, for that matter) is not required to for missing the same amount of time due to their child's illness. This is a routinely abused practice, and you cannot bring it to HR, because then you are branded "a jealous bad person" because the rules are not the same. I'm not saying take away time from parents; I suggest adjusting the rules so we all get to play the same game.

/not that upset though, just wish they would make it fair//work with nearly all males///some of 'em are kinda hot too

and why because I'm over 49 and single I get the 'lesbian' nod?

I'm a 40-y.o. married woman in mgmt without kids. On the one hand, I get your frustration. However, I work with a lot of other women who are moms and took mat leave, and I can't say that many are really that advantaged by it. They take six months off but don't get full salary for most of it, then come back on PT pay and for the next 10 years are caught in hell juggling work and kids.

I don't envy them. Much like paying taxes, I think that subsidizing their mat leave is taking one for the team.

/the team being human kind and encouraging the propagation thereof// seeing as most humans are morons, I realize I just torpedoed my own argument

The Jami Turman Fan Club:The tradition in India was that if a woman was above childbearing age and was widowed, she simply became male. "He" could therefore work with money, take jobs away from the home, etc.

Can she remarry? I know very little about Indian traditions, so this is very interesting.

Mr_Fabulous:I never had any desire to marry someone who wasn't interested in living the same sort of life that I do. Mrs_Fab is a highly competent and well-paid professional... and between the two of us, we do pretty well.

I can't imagine making do with less than half of our current income, all so I can come home to a homemade dinner (that's not even as good as one I can make myself) and a houseful of screaming tots.

I'm ok with this. I don't have kids for a reason. One, its the greenest thing you can do. And two, I'm too immature and selfish to be a good parent. Therefore I know better.

Anyway, yeah. I get it. Uh, train of thought derailing. Good for you and Mrs Fab.

Three-Fifty:And what happens to all of us unmarried women? Welfare? Food stamps? Hooking? (Oh wait... scratch that: hooking is a job.) Just marry any random guy in order to have housing and regular meals?

Thanks, but no thanks.

In the glorious days of the 1950s that never existed, women like us wouldn't exist.

Susie wants to go to college? Great! She'll find a smart husband who can take care of her. And he'll even let her have a part-time job for a little "pin money" but only until the first baby comes along. Then of course she'll stay home. She'll learn to be happy and obey her husband as a good Christian wife. Susie's husband starts drinking a little too much but Susie doesn't leave the house often anyway so nobody will notice the bruises. Susie's husband is now "working" late at night and has been seen around town with his much younger secretary. But what's Susie to do? She must love, honor and obey her husband and show him respect at all times, even though none is reciprocated. And now Susie's husband is leaving her for his young secretary. How will Susie care for herself and her four children? Ah... destitution and despair. The fate of too many women who are abused, neglected and abandoned with no recourse.

fark that shiat. I am forever grateful to the "radical feminists" before me who gave me the CHOICE to live a fulfilling life of my own.

umad:raygundan: hasty ambush: I know a guy who spent good money putting his daughter through school getting an engineering degree. She worked for one year after graduation/marriage before quitting to become a stay at home mom.

Wouldn't a year of an engineering salary generally pay for getting an engineering degree?

Sure, if you don't have to pay for rent, or food, or car payments or...

And she most likely married another smart fellow engineer and is having smart engineer children. After the kids are in school she can go back and work as an engineer.

If you seriously think educating women is a bad idea because "they'll stay at home and have babies" go live in Afghanistan or some other POS country that believes that.

Studies have shone that educating women is the key to success and wealth in a nation. Hell, you don't need studies, just look at a map.

If we really wanted to support young families:-Universal Health Care-More mat and parental leave. China and Pakistan give more mat leave than we do.-Stop putting the onus of benefits on businesses. In Canada Mat leave is a part of unemployment insurance, hence everyone pays into it their whole working lives. Society needs babies!-Taxes breaks for daycare

Soymilk:The Jami Turman Fan Club: The tradition in India was that if a woman was above childbearing age and was widowed, she simply became male. "He" could therefore work with money, take jobs away from the home, etc.

Can she remarry? I know very little about Indian traditions, so this is very interesting.

This.

As far as that other thought goes, yeah, minus surgery, I DID become "male". I worked two jobs to pay for the home we bought together (until I couldn't afford it anymore) but I get the idea. No kids meant I was just single again. But again- SO GLAD I didn't have any. Don't know what I would have done. As this author would suggest, perhaps I might have become a seamstress on an Amish farm whilst taking care of my child(ren? Twins run in my family)?

Soymilk:The Jami Turman Fan Club: The tradition in India was that if a woman was above childbearing age and was widowed, she simply became male. "He" could therefore work with money, take jobs away from the home, etc.

Can she remarry? I know very little about Indian traditions, so this is very interesting.

I suppose "he" could, but it wouldn't happen very often.The real question is...could "he" marry a woman? I have no idea.

kiwimoogle84:Soymilk: The Jami Turman Fan Club: The tradition in India was that if a woman was above childbearing age and was widowed, she simply became male. "He" could therefore work with money, take jobs away from the home, etc.

Can she remarry? I know very little about Indian traditions, so this is very interesting.

This.

As far as that other thought goes, yeah, minus surgery, I DID become "male". I worked two jobs to pay for the home we bought together (until I couldn't afford it anymore) but I get the idea. No kids meant I was just single again. But again- SO GLAD I didn't have any. Don't know what I would have done. As this author would suggest, perhaps I might have become a seamstress on an Amish farm whilst taking care of my child(ren? Twins run in my family)?

shortymac:-Stop putting the onus of benefits on businesses. In Canada Mat leave is a part of unemployment insurance, hence everyone pays into it their whole working lives. Society needs babies!

I was with you until this one. Most first-world nations function much better with a negative net population growth, meaning in the case of the US/Canada less than 1 baby per 70 citizens per year (ish). The remainder for full replacement is made up form immigration, keeping the nation from getting too clannish.

What I'm saying here is maybe less of the "encouraging people to irresponsibly push the earth further into overpopulation" and more "universal healthcare providing good birth control to everyone so that there's no such thing as an unplanned child and parents are actually generally prepared for that shiat and have planned out time off and so on".

//Sorry, I'm kind of incapable of letting go of the bigger picture on this one. There's also the basic issue that if you can't afford to take unpaid time off to care for an infant, you need to not be having kids as a simple matter of responsibility to the child.

Jim_Callahan:Meh, my mother stayed at home mostly and it worked out fine. They were middle class middle class, though, literally third quintile smack in the middle of the income distribution, and we lived in a low cost of living area. Plus, once we (the kids) were all reasonably independent human beings with school and shiat, I think the poor woman was bored out of her mind, she ended up volunteering for essentially all the things, ever. And at one point she fired the contractor for the house and took over managing a construction project herself. Which, don't get me wrong, saved a huge quantity of money and got the job done faster, but c'mon, how itching for something to do do you have to be? Christ.

What I'm saying here is that, as someone who grew up in a family unit intentionally designed (my parents, they're planners) to be basically what the author of TFA was proposing, I still don't see how it's particularly any more practical or compelling than a two-income household. I honestly think my mother would have been happier taking a five-year break (at which point my youngest sibling entered pre-school and was gone seven hours a day) and then working part time. She actually maintained her nursing license and is still current on it "in case something happens to your father", so I think the same idea may have occurred to her at some point.

//Then, my parents are so traditionally American they shiat bald eagles and sweat apple pie, so the level of crazy they experience when they don't have something constructive to do may be abnormally high.//The "in case something happens to your father" line still cracks me up, as they're age- and finance-wise essentially retired and he's only still working at this point because of the whole bald-eagle thing to begin with.

sigdiamond2000:Then during the late 1960s, radical feminists encouraged young women to set aside their traditional family roles as homemakers, helpmates, child nurturers and husband civilizers for something trumpted as much more rewarding.

What the f*ck is a "helpmate?"

18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

umad:raygundan: hasty ambush: I know a guy who spent good money putting his daughter through school getting an engineering degree. She worked for one year after graduation/marriage before quitting to become a stay at home mom.

Wouldn't a year of an engineering salary generally pay for getting an engineering degree?

Sure, if you don't have to pay for rent, or food, or car payments or...

My total college costs for an engineering degree (including room and board and stuff) was less than my first-year salary as an engineer. It's possible she had exorbitant housing cost or a BMW or something, I guess.

sigdiamond2000:Then during the late 1960s, radical feminists encouraged young women to set aside their traditional family roles as homemakers, helpmates, child nurturers and husband civilizers for something trumpted as much more rewarding.

What the f*ck is a "helpmate?"

That's a good question. I'm curious as to what "trumpted" means as well.

I feel that it's best for children to have one parent home at least part time with them when they young. It eliminates quite a few issues but it does require planning and sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

ocirats:mcwehrle: OgreMagi: Spaced Cowboy: Beware middle age women in middle management. You'll never find a less reasonable, less intelligent breed of human on the planet.

I've worked with some highly competent middle management women who were a joy to work for.

Then I've worked with the biatch shrews who think they have to prove something by berating all the men every chance they get.

For some reason, the hotter the woman manager, the bigger the biatch. I guess they are trying to prove they didn't get their job on their backs. Their actions suggest otherwise.

I despise working with mostly women. And here's why. The HR policies regarding them are so unequal. Young mothers need time off, sometimes extra, for sick kids, and yes, sometimes young mothers get sick and need time off too. What I have a problem with is as an older female who NEVER had kids, I *can* be required to bring in a physician's excuse if I miss over 3 consecutive days. A mother (or father, for that matter) is not required to for missing the same amount of time due to their child's illness. This is a routinely abused practice, and you cannot bring it to HR, because then you are branded "a jealous bad person" because the rules are not the same. I'm not saying take away time from parents; I suggest adjusting the rules so we all get to play the same game.

/not that upset though, just wish they would make it fair//work with nearly all males///some of 'em are kinda hot too

and why because I'm over 49 and single I get the 'lesbian' nod?

I'm a 40-y.o. married woman in mgmt without kids. On the one hand, I get your frustration. However, I work with a lot of other women who are moms and took mat leave, and I can't say that many are really that advantaged by it. They take six months off but don't get full salary for most of it, then come back on PT pay and for the next 10 years are caught in hell juggling work and kids.

I don't envy them. Much like paying taxes, I think that subsidizing their mat leave is taking one for the team.

/the team being human kind and encouraging the propagation thereof// seeing as most humans are morons, I realize I just torpedoed my own argument

Oh it's not the mat leave! That's cool. It's just the aabuse I see of 'my kid is sick', then talk to a mutual. Friend later to hear there was no sick child, only a coworker who didn't feel like working. And we can't question that. That's all.

RatMaster999:Cythraul: NuttierThanEver: Cythraul: I agree with the author.

It is a lot sexier when I come home to find my wife on her knees scrubbing my kitchen floor with a pie in the oven, rather than her coming home in a business suit telling me what groceries I need to pick up today.

/snark

She would likely be scrubbing the floor hoping you wouldn't notice that it was the plumber's semen she was cleaning up